US v. Daniel Rodriguez
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00481-JMC-11 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4180]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
J. Michelle Childs, District
December 28, 2015
January 21, 2016
Before KING, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bradley M. Kirkland, BRADLEY M. KIRKLAND, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United
States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Daniel Rodriguez appeals the district court’s judgment and
his sentence after the jury convicted him of drug conspiracy and
two related charges.
Rodriguez’s attorney has filed a brief
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issues of
whether the district court erred in determining the drug weight
Rodriguez possessed a gun in connection with the drug conspiracy
when he was acquitted by the jury of a charge under 18 U.S.C.
Rodriguez was notified of his right to file a
pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
United States v. Lymas, 781 F.3d 106, 111 (4th Cir.
2015) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007)).
significant procedural error, such as improperly calculating the
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
In determining whether
the Guidelines calculation was proper, we review the district
conclusions de novo.
United States v. Dodd, 770 F.3d 306, 309
(4th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1514 (2015).
Pg: 3 of 4
substantive reasonableness, taking into account the totality of
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We presume that a
sentence within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range
is substantively reasonable.
United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d
measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) factors.
States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
135 S. Ct. 421 (2014).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district
court correctly calculated Rodriguez’s Guidelines range, and his
sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable.
not error for the district court to find a higher drug weight by
a preponderance of the evidence than the threshold weight found
by the jury; nor was it error for the district court to apply
the enhancement under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) after the jury found
Rodriguez not guilty of the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) charge.
See United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 560-63 (4th Cir.
Moreover, we have reviewed the record and conclude that
the district court did not clearly err in making these findings.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and
have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that
counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her
Pg: 4 of 4
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to
withdraw from representation.
Counsel’s motion must state that
a copy thereof was served on the client.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?